Detailed Action
1. This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed 07/20/2026. Claims 1-10 are pending for examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
3. The claims 1-9 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
4. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a reset execution determination unit”, “a reset state information notification unit”, “a reset execution suspension unit” and “a reset execution release unit” in claims 1-5 and “a reset state information setting unit”, “a reset state information determination unit”, “a transmission suspension unit”, “an information transmission unit”, “a schedule existence determination unit” and “a reset execution suspension request notification unit” in claims 6-9.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
1Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
6. Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
7. The independent claim 1 recites the limitations “determining, whether a reset of the in-vehicle communication device is executable; and notifying the push server of reset state information”, are directed to generic computer module interfacing such as receiving, sending and displaying data. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as follows:
The limitations of “determining, whether a reset of the in-vehicle communication device is executable; and notifying the push server of reset state information”, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a reset execution determination unit and a reset state information notification unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim 1 only recites using “a reset execution determination unit and a reset state information notification unit” to perform the determining and notifying steps. The “a reset execution determination unit and a reset state information notification unit” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “a reset execution determination unit and a reset state information notification unit” to perform the determining and notifying steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
8. The independent claim 10 recites the limitations “transmit, to an in-vehicle electronic control unit that is connected to the in-vehicle communication device, push data in response to receiving the push data from a push server; determine whether a reset of the in-vehicle communication device is executable; and transmit, to the push server, reset state information”, are directed to generic computer module interfacing such as determining and transmitting data. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as follows:
The limitations of “transmit, to an in-vehicle electronic control unit that is connected to the in-vehicle communication device, push data in response to receiving the push data from a push server; determine whether a reset of the in-vehicle communication device is executable; and transmit, to the push server, reset state information”, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the independent claim 10 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim 10 only recites using “a processor” to perform the determining and transmitting steps. The “a processor” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The independent claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “a processor” to perform the determining and notifying steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HAYASHI (US 2021/0288870 A1).
11. As to claim 1, HAYASHI teaches an in-vehicle communication device transmitting, to an in-vehicle electronic control unit, push data in response to receiving the push data from a push server, the push server transmitting the push data to the in-vehicle communication device in response to reception of a transmission request of the push data from an application server ([0023]: the communication device 100 transmits and receives information on the operation of the communication device 100 by communicating with the management server 200 via the network N2), the in-vehicle communication device comprising:
a reset execution determination unit determining, according to an operation state of the in-vehicle communication device, whether a reset of the in-vehicle communication device is executable ([0030]: The failure detection unit 105 has a function of detecting a failure that has occurred in the communication device 100); and
a reset state information notification unit notifying, in response to determining that the reset of the in-vehicle communication device is executable, the push server of reset state information, which indicates that the in-vehicle communication device is in a reset state, in association with device identification information of the in-vehicle communication device before starting the reset of the in-vehicle communication device, wherein the device identification information enables identifying of the in-vehicle communication device ([0024]: If the communication device 100 has a failure due to a malfunction, the communication device 100 transmits, to the server 200, the notification information for providing a notification that a failure has occurred in the communication device 100. Inherently, any communication/notification message between a client device and a server includes device identification information identifying the client device and the server).
12. As to claim 10, claim 10 is a corresponding in-vehicle communication device that recites similar limitations as of device claim 1 and does not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
14. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAYASHI, in view of Moriguchi et al. (US 2004/0203918 A1), hereinafter “Moriguchi”.
15. As to claim 2, HAYASHI teaches the in-vehicle communication device according to claim 1, wherein the reset state information notification unit notifies the push server of the reset state information ([0024]: If the communication device 100 has a failure due to a malfunction, the communication device 100 transmits, to the server 200, the notification information for providing a notification that a failure has occurred in the communication device 100), but does not further teach “notifies the push server of period information indicating an estimated period of time until reconnection of a communication line between the in-vehicle communication device and the push server is completed or time information indicating an estimated time at which the reconnection of the communication line between the in-vehicle communication device and the push server is completed”.
In an analogous art, Moriguchi teaches that when the time reporting unit 205a predicts the line will be disconnected in Step S102, it further predicts whether the line can be re-connected or not within a specific time based on the prediction result of the communication level obtained by the prediction unit 204 (Step S106). As its result, if the time reporting unit 205a predicts the line can be reconnected after 9 minutes, it reports the user and his calling party on the time required for reconnection (9 minutes) ([0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of HAYASHI and Moriguchi to achieve the claimed invention to enable the system to notify all communication parties about the failure/reset state information and the predicted reconnection time to prevent sudden disconnection/failure of the communication (Moriguchi, [0012]).
16. Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAYASHI, in view of Whiting et al. (US 2022/0194236 A1), hereinafter “Whiting”.
17. As to claim 3, HAYASHI teaches the in-vehicle communication device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach “a reset execution suspension unit that suspends execution of the reset in response to reception of a reset execution suspension request from the push server”.
In an analogous art, Whiting teaches that the user may remotely control the automotive power system 100 via user commands at the portable electronic device 152. For example, the user commands to start/stop (i.e., suspend) the charge, restart or reset the automotive power system 100 ([0075]). It’s obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the user commands at the portable electronic device can be transmitted to the vehicle via network entities such as a push server.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of HAYASHI and Whiting to achieve the claimed invention to enable the system to remotely facilitate monitoring and controlling of a vehicle.
18. As to claim 5, HAYASHI-Whiting teaches the in-vehicle communication device according to claim 3, further comprising a reset execution suspension release unit that releases suspension on the execution of the reset in response to reception of a reset execution suspension release request from the push server (Whiting, [0075]: the user may remotely control the automotive power system 100 via user commands at the portable electronic device 152. For example, the user commands to start/stop (i.e., suspend) the charge, restart or reset the automotive power system 100).
Allowable Subject Matter
19. Claims 6-9 are allowable over prior art.
20. Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
21. Further references of interest are cited on Form PTO-892, which is an attachment to this Office Action.
22. A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE (3) months from the mailing date of this communication. See 37 CFR 1.134.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3886.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KAMAL B. DIVECHA, can be reached at (571) 272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUANG N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights